Ji dom is an inner judging space that relays instant judging feedback to me. Being an INFP, the venue for that space is in the realm of feeling and value. ...
So, to briefly reiterate: I judge everything, all day, every day, without effort or conscious thought. Because my singular point of reference is my own judging space, I inherently extrapolate that everyone else's judging space is as equally subjective. (Meaning, just my opinion, and everyone has one.) In order to make better judgements, I consciously HOLD OPEN the judging space to perception. My own perception, and the raw perceptions of others.
This is fascinating! To have to consciously choose to hold open perceptual space ... wow.
I suspect that different INFPs (or maybe more accurate to say Ji doms or at least Fi doms) make different choices about when and how to hold open that space. For me the key piece of clarity from your description is: it's a
conscious choice for you (Fi-dom) to do the non-default (perceiving) from a space of default judging.
In your specific case, one of your individually held values involves being as "
even and neutral as possible." My sense is that this value of yours, or one closely related to it, shapes your choices about holding open the judging space. I don't know that all Fi-doms hold that value like you do because from what I can tell, Fi dom values vary with the individual for the most part.
So in your case, that value
itself shapes your choices about holding open the judging space to perception. You're holding open a space for perception based on a value. Even there, the judging is primary. (probably a blinding glimpse of the obvious, but still fascinating to me)
So, let's turn this sideways now. Pi perceives everything, all day, without effort or conscious thought. The feeling I get from INFJ's on this is that this feels like a vast ocean open for exploration. You are not a point in the ocean, but you float across this inner landscape almost as an observer. This landscape just IS. And you just have eyes open to view it. Pure perceiving. So, you are inherently wired to know that everyone's perceiving space is controlled only by the vantage point through which they view any given event. Everyone is a bystander in the perceptive world and no one vantage point can claim jurisdiction.
This is almost 100% accurate to my experience. The only correction I would make from my vantage point is that I am a participant-observer as much as simply an observer. So I can also see my own movement in this landscape as part of the perceptual data. (note: in case it's not clear,
movement does not equal judgement.) But otherwise - yes.
In essence, you need everyone's judgements on the perception taken in to any given point in time.
For me - Not
everyone's necessarily, but the relevant ones to allow for useful action in any given specific context and situation. Picture a vast interconnected web with everyone performing specific functions as part of a larger whole. Or picture the ecosystem of human body. You can have "working groups" of elements within that with specific projects. Accurate judgement requires getting all of the relevant perceptual information for the specific context at that time.
Your preference would be to wait until this occurs naturally, but life kind of forces you sometimes to limit perceptive intake and make judgements. (Or maybe, it feels like life forces you out of that space, which would suck.) You inherently see almost every perception already. You CLOSE perception at some point and feel out the external space to receive judgements in turn. You value judgement that's as untainted as possible, free from ulterior motive or potential bias.
IMO, all perception is "biased" by the specific location/vantage point/function of the individual or group sharing that perception.
Information coming from ulterior motives is certainly not useful, though.
For INFJ, perceptions are a dime a dozen - judgement is key. I sense you need judgement because that assumes the audience you request data from has done the collecting / processing necessary in the perception realm to render judgement. If you solicit 10 judgements, and 6 see it your way, that lends credence to your conclusion and confidence in choosing a course of action moving forward.
This heads into tricky territory. I think Fe-aux can really mess with us on this. Something in the phrase "see it your way" pings for me. Not .... quite .... right.
Here is the sticky bit: You need my judgement and I don't want to give it because I know it will influence your action and I feel need more data to render it. Thus, I want your data yet you see that as irrelevant since you've already held open the perception space, surfed around in it and feel you have enough info to render judgement at any given moment in time.
Maybe other INFJs need your judgement, but I know I don't. I actually agree with you about how a Fi-dom's judgement can mess with a Ni-dom's action. But I've had to learn this the hard way, and I think I was more like what you're describing several years ago than I am now after so much time in a close relationship with an INFP.
edited to add: but I still, no matter what, do seek out my INFP partner's perspective on any decision that will affect us both. I realize as I think about this that I can't turn this off. And it puts me in a very difficult situation because I pull against myself when her hardcore (to me) individually-based judgement messes with my capacity to perceive true because her judgement is so loud and so strong and perception requires a quieter mode in me.
You know, I think I would much prefer getting her perceptual information followed by discussion of what the mixture of perceptual information from us both might mean for action (collective judgement).
*lightbulb goes on*
I don't want my INFP's individual judgement! I want to share perceptual information and tentative assessments of meaning and come to a
collective judgement about meaning and what's going on!
I wonder if this is a huge disconnect for someone who always individually judges as the default (Fi).
I do want to say: as much as you
value your own open-ness to data, the thing that gets to me so far in interactions with you in particular is that I can sense unspoken judgement in you even as you appear to be asking me "neutral" questions - it's the
unspoken-ness of the judgement that bugs me, the disconnect between the presentation of self as neutral and open to perceptual data, and the background judging that is still happening. (I don't know if you want feedback like this from me but will share it in case it's of use).
Because a Final Judgement is much more final for me, and I know what kind of impact it can make when I throw any given judgement out into the world, I hesitate to make any, especially in this venue.
Are you sure that you're not making judgements in the background and just not sharing them explicitly because you don't want to have a negative effect as you describe?